- Make a claim about vaccines that cannot be proven with science.
- When challenged, post links to anti-vaccination websites, editorials, or various articles from the Internet none of which are peer-reviewed and/or published in reputable scientific journals.
- After the data posted has been called into question due to bias or the lack of supporting science, accuse those who disagree with you as "having too much to lose" or being affiliated with "big pharma", "mainstream medicine" or having some other profit motive. It is also a good idea to label anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as "sheeple" or some other clever insult.
- When scientific information is posted in direct response to the original claim, respond by stating it is biased because it came from the government or was financed by a drug company or medical association. Don't bother to actually respond to the data or offer scientific data to counter it, but rather attack the person who authored it or posted it. This step is typically more effective when you don't bother to read or examine the data offered and instead just read the titles or abstracts.
- Find another anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist who will post the same information as you and therefore claim you are "winning" because others believe what you are saying. In the event another anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist cannot be found, register a second or third username on the same website in order to make it appear that more than one person has the same views on the subject... and be sure those people all use the same sentence structure, make the same unsupportable claims, use the same grammatical errors, and cite the same websites.
- After others have disputed the original claim about vaccines and after scientific data has been shown to invalidate the original claim, respond by claiming you have already provided numerous scientific studies and journal articles and mountains of evidence to prove the original claim in the hopes that others will simply take your word for it rather than recognizing you lack the understanding of what real scientific data actually is. Insert one or two ad hominem attacks for good measure.
- Change the subject in order to confuse those who disagree with you. If the original subject is the MMR vaccine, start speaking about Gardisil. If the original subject is Autism and vaccines, divert attention to biomedical treatment. If the subject is chiropractic, start speaking about chelation therapy, and if the original subject is thimerosal, try to talk about smallpox, polio, or refined sugar etc. Any form of a red herring argument is helpful at this point.
- Eventually after your data has been shown to be worthless and you are to the point of being openly mocked for being an ignorant fool with a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method, respond by claiming you have won the debate. Post at least four or five additional comments with the same data or slight variations of it. Bombard the forums or messageboards with post after post of data in order to make it appear that you have mountains of evidence in support of your opinion (even though most of it is from the same anti-vaccination websites or personal blogs).
- Go back to step 2 and repeat the process over and over again ensuring to cut and paste the same data and/or list of same websites numerous times in order to make it appear the data is actually more valuable than it was the last time you posted it. Be sure and add in a statement such as "nothing is ever enough" or "no amount of evidence will ever suffice" or something similar in order to make it appear that you have provided more than enough proof for any independent thinking minds and the only people who would disagree with you at this point are those with a profit motive or those connected to "modern medicine".
- In all future debates about similar subject matters, always be sure to make claims about how you have won all previous debates and that your information is undisputed or factual. No matter how much evidence surfaces proving your claims to be untrue or your sources invalid, continue to make the same claims. If someone challenges you, simply cut and paste the same message multiple times to show that quantity can be an acceptable replacement for quantity.
Granted this pattern isn't set in stone, but it, or a close variation of it, seems to be followed in the majority of the cases. True to form, Lowell Hubbs follows this pattern often, and he doesn't even bother to hide the fact that he does so.
Case in point, here is a comment from Mr. Hubbs where he admits he posts the same data more than once as if that makes it factual:
"Thtas [sic] why I posted links twice when I did, because I knew it had been ignored; because the same claims returned." ~Lowell HubbsAside from the broken English, grammar, and spelling errors we can see that Mr. Hubbs believes that because someone disagrees with him it cannot be because they find fault in the data or the sources, but rather simply because they ignored the data. The only logical response is of course to post the same data again.
When that doesn't seem to work, Mr. Hubbs then makes excuses on why his data is being ignored:
"There are obviously medical field people here, with to [sic] much to lose; damage control." ~Lowell HubbsAh yes, because the only people who could ever understand the scientific method or who might not believe ever word of a anti-vaccination zealot would be those who are in "the medical field" or those who have too much to lose. Where have we heard that one before?
Don't forget that obligatory reference to sheeple however... we don't want to miss a step here. Also be sure to label your data as "truth" even when it has no basis in real science and cannot stand up to the rigors of the scientific method:
"they want to keep the sheeple blind to the truth" ~Lowell HubbsTrue to form, add in a dose of the famous "nothing is ever enough" line to ensure people understand you are fighting an uphill battle against those who refuse to accept the truth:
"Nothing is enough." ~Lowell HubbsNow comes the part where the wild unsupportable claims come out. Don't bother trying to find the scientific data to support these wild claims however as it doesn't exist:
"The raw food and juicing diet will reverse almost any condition know to man; [...] terminal cancer can be reversed, and has been." ~Lowell HubbsYes you heard it here... the mind of the medical genius Lowell Hubbs has proven you can cure cancer or "almost any condition known to man" simply by eating raw foods and juicing. Do we have peer-reviewed studies which show this miracle cancer cure? Of course not... but that is merely because everyone is concerned over profits and nobody actually cares about curing disease these days. What - you didn't get the memo that when people put on white lab coats they automatically lose their souls?
This all sort of makes you wonder why Jack LaLane died of pneumonia considering he had a raw food diet and even had a juicer named after him... shouldn't he have been able to reverse his condition due to diet? I guess pneumonia isn't considered one of those conditions though.
Granted the father of the raw food movement (Herbert Shelton) actually died of Parkinson's after being bedridden for 13 years should probably be a clue that raw foods aren't the miracle they are claimed to be, but don't let those pesky facts get in the way of an unsupportable opinion. Don't bother asking Woyah Andressohn what she thinks about raw foods however. You won't get an answer because Woyah is no longer with us. She died when she was only six months old and weighed less than seven pounds (half of what a typical six month old weighs) - all because she was fed a a raw food diet by her parents.
Ice Swinton was yet another example of how raw foods aren't the miracle they are claimed to be. At 15 months of age, Ice weighed only 10 pounds, didn't have any teeth, and couldn't even sit up on her own. After she was taken from her parents due to the severe malnutrition, she spent the following four months in the hospital and a rehabilitation center. Does that seem like a diet that is capable of solving "almost any condition known to man"?
Of course what post by Mr. Hubbs would be complete without the accusations or profit motive or the misunderstanding of what real "research is" (note to Mr. Hubbs... performing Google searches is not 'research'):
"Smear campaigns are the norm; every time anyone steps out of the politically correct for profit line; no matter how good the research!" ~Lowell HubbsMix in approximately 20 links most of which go to known anti-vaccination websites along with a few in support of Dr. Wakefield and you pretty much have a typical post for Lowell Hubbs or any anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist. The most comical aspect comes in a later post where Mr. Hubbs has the audacity to state the following:
"Your first mistake is trusting Wiki exclusively as an only and accurate source of facts as an accurate source of information. Are you kidding me? Unbelievable." ~Lowell HubbsKeep in mind this is the same man who routinely cites websites such as whale.to, his own personal blog, and the blogs and websites of known anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists. In fact in the very same comment that he posted the statement above, he links to his personal website no less than seven times! That is nothing other than unparallelled hypocrisy to the nth degree.
This just goes to show how Mr. Hubbs erratic behavior is consistent no matter where he is posting. It could be his own website, it could be any one of the various blogs he has created, it could be on Huffington Post, or on the Argus Leader, or on a scientific website, or on a medical blog, or anywhere else he happens to stumble upon that particular day. Although one has to wonder why Mr. Hubbs is posting on a website that is setup for and centered around busy Moms. I've heard of Mr. Mom, but Lowell isn't even a parent much less a mother (thank God), so this is yet another case of Mr. Hubbs thinking he needs to berate others into believing his twisted views.
At least he is consistent. Consistently ignorant and consistently wrong mind you, but consistent none the less.